"One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure. " Kraut.

Yea, and 9/11 was only a myth!

"If they're on such rock solid scientific ground, why doesn't the science speak for itself?"

That statement is just laughable. Why not use Galileo as the example or Darwin?

There are many example throughout history, particularly western Christian, where science was repressed. Anyone hear of the dark ages?

Christian bigotry still exists today and with global warming. Rush stated so himself. He does not believe that man could change god's work. Therefore, global warming could not possible be 'created' by man.

"The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth,..."

Finally, an allusion to the truth about the "War on Terror" in Iraq.

Everybody take notice now because you just heard it from the two village idiot above.

jhow66: Thanks for being there. I had fears this might have been an all-troll Friday.

Maybe we should buy Elizabeth a MEGAPHONE, so she can tell Rosie to STFU. Failing that, she could just beat her with it.....

I don't know why gas prices are so high if we now have Iraq's oil - but clearly logic doesn't apply to sock puppets!

Lorie - your article at Townhall.com was brilliant, as always. I have linked to it from my site.

Have a great weekend.

1) The neocon Erasmus sends for Martian support to buttress his argument. Martian demurrs.

2) Fat nerd as Al Gore sattelite.

3) Lorie tacitly admits that Bushbots aren't too bright and shouldn't cross the informational street.

BarenyG- I think you meant- "Anti-Christian bigotry still exists today and with global warming."
The only acceptable group to insult anymore, at least for your ilk, is Christian. You chickenGlobalWarmerHawks should try that crap in Tehran with Ahmed and his boys. You and your boyfriend along with Rosie and her girl, could saunter down Main singing Kumbaya and see what happens.

Barney, in the examples of Galileo and Darwin, they had theories and sound science to back them up that elitists did not accept. With Global Warming(TM) you have scientists with theories and absolutely NO SCIENCE to back them up being universally accepted by the elite. So, yes, they are good analogies how idiots like you refuse to actually believe in science, though I doubt that was the conclusion you were looking for.

Yes Brainy, the scientific community is just a bunch of sheep that can't read a research report.

Kat, you are almost right. I should have wrote Christians are science bigots. Do you really believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old?

If Afghanistan held any significant oil reserves, you can bet we'd be sending more of our young people to die there as well. I have no problem acknowledging the strategic importance of the Middle East, based chiefly on oil, and think we need to have a presence over there. I just disagree with the invasion and occupation of a country, igniting a civil war and attempting to justify it by a bunch of poor excuses like WMD and spreading freedom. Problem is, they couldn't have sold it without the hype. Now our foreign policy wizards have succeeded in destabilizing the region, making more enemies and providing the terrorists who have flocked there with their own little shooting gallery/training ground.

brainy436: "universally accepted by the elite"
ooo! la dee dah!

The climate has always had heating and cooling cycles not influenced by man, and man's influence today is very minimal, but when the get-along gang staked their pride on "no global warming" AT ALL (Rushbo), and then winter is reduced to 3 weeks this year, panic sets in. And that panic has nothing to do with science. It has to do with being seen as wrong.

No, Barney, the scientific comunity...except for the 17,000+ mentioned in the linked article...is a bunch of sheep who know how to read expense reports and fill out grant requests far too well.

bryanD, I don't recall any Global Warming(TM) sceptics claiming that there isn't any warming going on at all, just that if there is we had no role in causing it. If you are correct, I'm sure you could find some quotes, links, etc to support your assertion, right?

The global warming hype/myth is being debunked daily. It's sinking fast. The libs better come up with a new "fear" to get people in their camp.

Does anyone remember Sir Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein trying to get people to buy into their scientific theories by coming up with doomsday scenarios? No, of course not.
John Hawkins

I do (not first hand of course).

Read these letters Einstein wrote to President Roosevelt to warn him of the potential for nuclear bombs.

Now, we know Einstein had science behind. I'm still not convinced that global warming is catastrophic, but I do think man has the capacity to affect the global climate and may be contributing to natural cycles. Where this gets us in 100-200 years, I have no idea. But I'd rather work towards reducing fossil fuel use for a number of reasons (energy security, improved air quality, technological advancement, etc.) than simply stick my head in the sand.

There are many example throughout history, particularly western Christian, where science was repressed. Anyone hear of the dark ages?

Christian bigotry still exists today...

That's why christian nations were the last to advance medically, agriculturally, and the last to walk on the moon.

What's is like being a living joke.

It's heretical, I know, but the article that persuaded me that global warming WAS real, and WAS caused by humans, is this one...

THE ANTHROPOGENIC GREENHOUSE ERA BEGAN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO

Good, hard, solid science... and it convinced me that if it WEREN'T for human-caused methane emissions warming the planet, NE Canada would be under glaciers at this point.

Science. It's great stuff. However - you've got to look at the WHOLE picture when it comes to Global Warming, otherwise you're taking a few years and extrapolating curves which don't have any relation to reality.

sean, if the goals you would like us to get to, i.e. energy security, improved air quality, technological advancement, etc, are so desirable, why can't they be advanced on their own merits? I'd love to see us improve in all those areas, but I don't think we need to scare and lie to people to get there.

brainy435 typed: "I don't recall any Global Warming(TM) sceptics claiming that there isn't any warming going on at all"

About 2 years ago, the pundits on radio (Rush, etc) surrendered the "no warming at all" meme, to the "no man made warming" meme. And Bush is now joining the man-made warming side. It's political gradualism.

Everybody (politically aware) knows the ups and downs of the debate on this one, so I'll let you do the googling.

Einstein also sought contradictory evidence. He was fervent about seeking out proof that might disprove his hypotheses --- something the AGW crowd does NOT remotely support.
-=Mike

I'm too tired to argue today, so here's something to makes me laugh.

Has anyone noticed the lefties have yet to address the 10 basic, very basic if the science is sound, questions?

Thats because to date, the scientists, politicians, and activists pounding the drum for man-made global warming don't have answers for those ten questions.

Further, no mathematical model (which is being used to predict temperatures 100-200 years out) has shown itself to be even close against actual historical data points.

This is not surprising, given that there are thousands of variables, and we haven't even begun to address the Earth System's capability to utilize the natural processes inherent in the global warming debate to "stabilize" the climate within rather narrow historical parameters.

Until the "man-made GW" science crowd can answer these basic questions, I think I'll hold off on triggering a US inspired global recession.

BTW, per the 10 questions, Mars is heating up as well. Why?

Does anyone remember Sir Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein trying to get people to buy into their scientific theories by coming up with doomsday scenarios? No, of course not.
John Hawkins

Sean NYC: "I do (not first hand of course).

Read these letters Einstein wrote to President Roosevelt to warn him of the potential for nuclear bombs."

See Sean, this is a perfect example of why you are still out to lunch on man-made GW.

In Einsteins case, the mathematics were well founded, experiments were devised to test the mathematics (proven correct), and these results were well understood by leading theoriticians who could replicate the experiments which validated the math.

Guess what's missing from this debate?

Yep. All the math that is verifiable, testable, and repeatable.

Other than that, it's all "real" science for sure.

Do I think the Earth is warming mildly? Yes. Why? Because the Earth has been warming for quite sometime (as in, well before SUV's).

I can accept that global warming is happening. I can even admit that mankind is at least partially responsible for it. What I have difficulty accepting is that with the coming 20 foot rise in sea levels, my tax dollars are still being used to rebuild a city that is 17 foot below present sea level.

Barney - the IPCC report is NOT a research report. It is a political report for review by governments to edit (spin) before the actual report is out. Your massive ignorance on this topic is breathtaking (& yes I am an environmental scientist doing emission and climate change modeling).

What bryanD said:
Everybody (politically aware) knows the ups and downs of the debate on this one, so I'll let you do the googling."

What bryanD meant:
I'm talkin out o' my ass here and can't back up any of my assertions, so I'll bow out now.

The IPCC Summary does not make clear that the warming in the first half of the century was attributed to the sun being hotter. The human component (if you believe the models) are at the low end of the projected warming. The scaremongering comes in when jumping to the conclusion that there are going to be disasters on a cosmic scale due to CO2. Huh? There is no proven science yet (many theories though) that shows that an increase in trace atmospheric CO2 gas causes more warming.

The real news in the current IPCC Summary is that various results of global warming have been estimated to be less than previously stated in the last IPCC Report. I expect the next report in a few years will show even less impact by anthropogenic sources to global warming. So the libs may have a small window to get those carbon taxes in place, which is the real reason for all of this scaremongering.

Weren't the leftwing weenies screaming about the coming "Ice Age" about 20-30 years ago? WTF happened to that?

Krauthammer -- let's keep giving him chances -- maybe one day he'll be correct on one thing.

See Sean, this is a perfect example of why you are still out to lunch on man-made GW.
Drago

Why? I was disproving the statement made in Lorie's post. Was I correct in that regard?

Also, I later admit I also am skeptical about the catastrophic potential of global warming, but I do think man may be contributing to the process. The science is debatable on both sides (ie I don't fully trust the feedback loop models or the excuse that it's simply the sun, with no other contributions). Pinpoint exactly where I am "out to lunch".

if the goals you would like us to get to, i.e. energy security, improved air quality, technological advancement, etc, are so desirable, why can't they be advanced on their own merits?
brainy435

To put it simply, money. All those factor are desirable, but money is still the driver for both corporate and individual interests. This is where gov't is supposed to play a role because it does not have a profit motive.

"Barney - the IPCC report is NOT a research report." SSS

When did I mention the IPCC report? How about never. Are you telling me that scientist are not writing, reading, testing and reviewing papers/studies? And you call yourself a scientist?

Brainy, the '1700' crap again. That was debunked long ago.

sean: There is no money to be made in energy dependance or technological advancement? Do you really believe that?

Barney, man, you almost have to be some smart-ass doing a lib parody for our amusement. "Brainy, the '1700' crap again. That was debunked long ago." You include that gem in a post discussing how libs are refusing to debate and instead insist that what they believe is just the way it is and if you disagree you are dumb. Pricelessly idiotic.

Oh, and your number was off by more than a factor of 10. Hilariously ironic.

Sean: "Why? I was disproving the statement made in Lorie's post. Was I correct in that regard?"

I don't think so, and let me explain. As I understood this remark, you were addressing Einsteins "warnngs" about Hitler's attempt to develop nuclear weaps as an example of a scientist who was using a sort of doomsday scenario to get the government of the US to do something.

I don't disagree with that. However, the difference between a situation where the science was mathematically irrefutable, testable, and reproducible is so different from this as to render the analogy inoperative.

However, I wouldn't get too hung up on this disagreement.

Sean: "Also, I later admit I also am skeptical about the catastrophic potential of global warming, but I do think man may be contributing to the process."

That's part of the whole question, isn't it. How much warming is going on? How unusual is this warming (if occurring)? Is it a bad thing or a good thing? If bad, how are you determining whether or not it's a bad thing or a good thing? How much of a bad thing is it? How much control do we have over this? Assuming all the previous questions are answered in a way that "justifies" actions, have we determined if our actions will cause greater harm than good? How do we know?

None of these questions have been properly addressed by the man-made GW crowd.

Sean: "The science is debatable on both sides.."

False. Only one side is making an assertion. The burden of scientific proof is upon them (and so far, the results are not even close to being delivered.)

Sean: "...(ie I don't fully trust the feedback loop models or the excuse that it's simply the sun, with no other contributions)."

Why? Keep your answer mathematically valid and testable, else your just going on your feelings. Not very "scientific.

Sean: "Pinpoint exactly where I am "out to lunch"."

Oh, that related to the first answer above where I was addressing your analogy of Einstein warning of German development of the bomb (solid, testable science), vs man-made GW (unproven mathematically, untestable (so far))